September 12, 2007

Between iraq and a hard place

9/11 Linked To Iraq, In Politics if Not in Fact

The Washington Post's Peter Baker uses his report to argue that a recent campaign to tie the war in Iraq to 9/11 is, well, politics. But when he gets to Ari Fleischer he gets an explanation for the campaign.

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, one of the group's founders, said the ad is not misleading by saying "they attacked us" in the context of Iraq and showing the image of the Sept. 11 attack. "Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11," he agreed. But it does not matter, Fleischer added, because some of the same sorts of people who did are now fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Nine-one-one absolutely is a bona fide, legitimate reason to remind people what's at stake," he said. "The point is not that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They're not. But 9/11 should be a vivid reminder to everyone about how vulnerable our country is and that's why we need to win in Iraq."

President Bush is often described as rigid in his beliefs. But the War on Terror demonstrates just the opposite. In his campaign against Al Gore, he mocked the idea of nation building.

After 9/11 though, George Bush started arguing for democracy. Countries like Somalia provided breeding grounds for Al Qaeda. Nature - human nature too - abhors a vacuum. During the 90's Al Qaeda grew where there was no strong central government or support from rogue states. President Bush drew a lesson from the 90's and realized that those who allow or assist terror organizations are working against American interests and must be stopped.

It wasn't that Saddam's Iraq was involved in 9/11 as the media and Democrats like to mis-represent President Bush's charge, but that someone like Saddam is likely to play a role in the next attack against America.

Now the problem in Iraq is how to prevent it from becoming a failed state that would incubate new terror movements capable of hitting the United States. But if the United States is tied town in Iraq, so to is Al Qaeda and that engagement is likely one of the factors that has prevented another 9/11 during the subsequent 6 years.

, , .

Posted by SoccerDad at September 12, 2007 1:44 AM | TrackBack
Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
Comments

OK so, do we stay there and let more of our soldiers die because of the bed we have made? I mean really, poor research has gotten us to this point. Do we sacrifice our soldiers to thwart a presumed future attack? Will you advise your children to join the service to become a pawn in a game of misinformation?

Posted by: not a soccer dad at September 12, 2007 11:35 AM

"It wasn't that Saddam's Iraq was involved in 9/11 as the media and Democrats like to mis-represent President Bush's charge"
----------------------------
Let's be honest. Bush was trying to make that implication in the minds of Americans. He was trying to make Americans believe saddam had something to do with 9/11 without actually saying so, of course.

I do agree that being in Iraq and therefore keeping al qaeda tied-up in Iraq has worked well for us.

Posted by: Laura at September 12, 2007 12:07 PM